Once you UNDERSTAND the Gambler's Fallacy, and it sinks in, you will never make your remark [in blue] at the top again!

--Jimmy4164

P.S.

You also asked,"Let's extend it to all professional gamblers that have for years, defied the odds and won millions? How does the gambler's fallacy allow that to happen?"

Professional gamblers, like stock traders, horse race handicappers, sports betters, blackjack card counters, etc., are NOT GUILTY of believing the Gambler's Fallacy! Why? Because the historical events and statistics that they rely on to predict the short term future have been shown(PROVED) to have predictive abilities, based on cause and effect relationships between them and subsequent events. When a Blackjack player updates his/her counters when cards are removed from play, he/she has a slightly better edge than before, and their edge continues to increase UNTIL THE CARDS ARE RESHUFFLED! In lotteries, ALL OF THE "CARDS" ARE REPLACED AND RESHUFFLED AFTER EVERY DRAW!!!

How can I make it any clearer than this?

Up later than I expected. Did go and look at your YouTube Monty Hall Problem - nice. Also read your This Week article. Of course, there is more to the Monty Hall problem. This is one of the letters to Marilyn:

Marilyn, there's nothing wrong with your math. As you noted, math answers aren't determined by votes. But TV ratings are! What could possibly have justified your assumption that the game show host offers every contestant the same choice? The initial question described only a single incident.

If I were the game show host, and you were the contestant, I'd offer you the option to switch only if you initially chose the correct door. In this case, the first door has a 100% chance of winning, the second door has a 0% chance, and switching would be a sure loser.

Unless you understand the motives and behavior of the game show host, all the mathematics in the world won't help you answer this question.

I also reread your gambler's fallacy. I still do not buy all of it. There is something unexplained that goes on to allow gamblers to win. What you said above is true for some games like Black Jack. Not sure how that is true for horse racing. Certainly NOT true for roulette players. I know at least one winning Roulette player - can he win for the rest of his life? For 33 years? Don't know. But he has made a ton of money in the few years he has concentrated on Roulette. For the lottery, I believe it is possible to "outsmart" random and do better than 12 plus/minus 3.3 standard deviation with Pick 3. Variable change / system / methodology / intuition / luck any one of which could beat your statistical 12. That is why I asked the questions that I asked. I found no way that the Gambler's Fallacy would "allow" that to happen. You only offered "luck." I say it is more than just luck.

Once you UNDERSTAND the Gambler's Fallacy, and it sinks in, you will never make your remark [in blue] at the top again!

--Jimmy4164

P.S.

You also asked,"Let's extend it to all professional gamblers that have for years, defied the odds and won millions? How does the gambler's fallacy allow that to happen?"

Professional gamblers, like stock traders, horse race handicappers, sports betters, blackjack card counters, etc., are NOT GUILTY of believing the Gambler's Fallacy! Why? Because the historical events and statistics that they rely on to predict the short term future have been shown(PROVED) to have predictive abilities, based on cause and effect relationships between them and subsequent events. When a Blackjack player updates his/her counters when cards are removed from play, he/she has a slightly better edge than before, and their edge continues to increase UNTIL THE CARDS ARE RESHUFFLED! In lotteries, ALL OF THE "CARDS" ARE REPLACED AND RESHUFFLED AFTER EVERY DRAW!!!

How can I make it any clearer than this?

Up later than I expected. Did go and look at your YouTube Monty Hall Problem - nice. Also read your This Week article. Of course, there is more to the Monty Hall problem. This is one of the letters to Marilyn:

Marilyn, there's nothing wrong with your math. As you noted, math answers aren't determined by votes. But TV ratings are! What could possibly have justified your assumption that the game show host offers every contestant the same choice? The initial question described only a single incident.

If I were the game show host, and you were the contestant, I'd offer you the option to switch only if you initially chose the correct door. In this case, the first door has a 100% chance of winning, the second door has a 0% chance, and switching would be a sure loser.

Unless you understand the motives and behavior of the game show host, all the mathematics in the world won't help you answer this question.

I also reread your gambler's fallacy. I still do not buy all of it. There is something unexplained that goes on to allow gamblers to win. What you said above is true for some games like Black Jack. Not sure how that is true for horse racing. Certainly NOT true for roulette players. I know at least one winning Roulette player - can he win for the rest of his life? For 33 years? Don't know. But he has made a ton of money in the few years he has concentrated on Roulette. For the lottery, I believe it is possible to "outsmart" random and do better than 12 plus/minus 3.3 standard deviation with Pick 3. Variable change / system / methodology / intuition / luck any one of which could beat your statistical 12. That is why I asked the questions that I asked. I found no way that the Gambler's Fallacy would "allow" that to happen. You only offered "luck." I say it is more than just luck.

truecritic,

As I pointed out in my original reply to your mention of the video,"The problem with alternative rules to the game is that it gives those who still can't understand [or can't admit they were wrong] why the player should switch in the original stated problem, a way to muddy the waters and deny it's the correct answer. I know; it caused me to lose a friend over it."

By looking up the letters of disagreement to Marylin, of which there were thousands, it's no surprise you found a game rule changer:

From a letter to Vos Savant: "Unless you understand the motives and behavior of the game show host, all the mathematics in the world won't help you answer this question."

Can't you see how irrelevent this is to the original puzzle as described by Vos Savant? She was NOT addressing the honesty of the game show host, nor did she bring up the possibility that the game's sponsors could have been backstage moving goats and cars around depending on the contestants' choices!!! The letter writer's opinion above notwithstanding, mathematics does, IN FACT, INSIST that you must "Switch" doors every time if you want to double your chances of winning, IN THE HYPOTHETICAL GAME SHOW WHOSE RULES ARE PRECISELY SPELLED OUT.

The house edge in roulette is slightly greater than 5%. Either your friend is being disingenuous, in the way that many fisherman are joked to be, or he is VERY VERY LUCKY!

You just can't shake the fallacy can you? Did you visit other sites besides Wikipedia, to see how they address it? Did you read the 4 or 5 psychological explanations of why you might be having a problem shaking it?

Earlier, in questioning the Gambler's Fallacy, you said, "There is something unexplained that goes on to allow gamblers to win."

Please put on both your critical thinking and abstract reasoning "caps" and try to explain what this "unexplained" phenomena might be.

Unfortunately, if I could explain the unexplained, then I would not have asked you. Otherwise refer back to my standard reasons... variable change / system / methodology / intuition / luck. If you are just going to write it off as luck and nothing more, then I will continue to disagree with the Gambler's Fallacy and consider it incomplete and not acceptable as proof.

Regarding Marilyn and the Original Monty Hall problem - I never said she answered wrong. But it would be incomplete from the Monty Hall TV corporation point of view - as outlined in that letter. When one enters a game (for real) often such moral issues can be at play.

If you figure 2 horses have a chance to win but you hear that the trainer is trying a new "food" - that can often be the deciding edge needed to win. You can't go into the Monty Hall program prepared to grab that 66.7% edge, thinking you are so smart that the Monty Hall people aren't going to trick you.

I know the edge for roulette. Although to be precise, your statement is only partially correct. Double zero = 5.26% and he plays the Single Zero at 2.70% But, again, whether you knew that or not is irreverent to the fact that he wins and consistently outperforms the odds. You say he is lucky at roulette. I disagree and say it is skill/system/methodology, etc; and yes, of course some luck.

Unfortunately, if I could explain the unexplained, then I would not have asked you. Otherwise refer back to my standard reasons... variable change / system / methodology / intuition / luck. If you are just going to write it off as luck and nothing more, then I will continue to disagree with the Gambler's Fallacy and consider it incomplete and not acceptable as proof.

Regarding Marilyn and the Original Monty Hall problem - I never said she answered wrong. But it would be incomplete from the Monty Hall TV corporation point of view - as outlined in that letter. When one enters a game (for real) often such moral issues can be at play.

If you figure 2 horses have a chance to win but you hear that the trainer is trying a new "food" - that can often be the deciding edge needed to win. You can't go into the Monty Hall program prepared to grab that 66.7% edge, thinking you are so smart that the Monty Hall people aren't going to trick you.

I know the edge for roulette. Although to be precise, your statement is only partially correct. Double zero = 5.26% and he plays the Single Zero at 2.70% But, again, whether you knew that or not is irreverent to the fact that he wins and consistently outperforms the odds. You say he is lucky at roulette. I disagree and say it is skill/system/methodology, etc; and yes, of course some luck.

truecritic,

Since you apparently did not take my suggestions above, you force me to repeat myself:

"You just can't shake the fallacy can you? Did you visit other sites besides Wikipedia, to see how they address it? Did you read the 4 or 5 psychological explanations of why you might be having a problem shaking it?

I hope you don't give up. The TRUTH can be liberating."

If you take my advice and check out these alternative sources and STILL feel the Gambler's Fallacy is not really a fallacy, you have recourse here:

Since you apparently did not take my suggestions above, you force me to repeat myself:

"You just can't shake the fallacy can you? Did you visit other sites besides Wikipedia, to see how they address it? Did you read the 4 or 5 psychological explanations of why you might be having a problem shaking it?

I hope you don't give up. The TRUTH can be liberating."

If you take my advice and check out these alternative sources and STILL feel the Gambler's Fallacy is not really a fallacy, you have recourse here:

If you go through life forming and sharing opinions, it is a rock-solid certainty that you will be wrong about something. The more opinions you have, the more that will happen. The bigger the issue, the more spectacularly wrong you're likely to be.

In my mid-20s, I stumbled on a brain teaser that, literally, changed how I viewed the world. As melodramatic as it sounds, I haven't been the same since. And, as with so many other things in this world, it's all Jerry Pournelle's fault...

None of us really likes to admit being wrong. One of the most seductive ways to avoid that is to change our opinions retroactively. We say, "No, no, you just misunderstood, you thought I was saying X when I really said Y." Or, even worse, sometimes we just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the evidence in front of us.

Not that genuine misunderstandings don't happen. But a lot of people, when caught out as wrong, will say it didn't happen. Instead, they conveniently shift their position, but act like they didn't. It's almost as if we rewrite our memories, and by so doing rewrite the history of what we did or said. It's a pathology that's common to the human animal. Opinionated bloviators such as myself are particularly prone to the affliction. I don't claim to be cured, but I think I'm able to recognize the symptoms and, hopefully, manage the disease tolerably...."

Since you apparently did not take my suggestions above, you force me to repeat myself:

"You just can't shake the fallacy can you? Did you visit other sites besides Wikipedia, to see how they address it? Did you read the 4 or 5 psychological explanations of why you might be having a problem shaking it?

I hope you don't give up. The TRUTH can be liberating."

If you take my advice and check out these alternative sources and STILL feel the Gambler's Fallacy is not really a fallacy, you have recourse here:

A) I understand the Monty Hall Doors. I understood it long before you joined. No need to refer me to more articles re-hashing that.

B) It can be exhilirating. Because when you do pin down a fact, when you can verify something empirically, there really is no arguing about it. I have experienced outdoing random on many occassions and come out winning myself. I know of others. Empirical proof that the gambler's fallacy does not explain. Unless those winners are explained there and I just did not understand it. If it is there, then the question becomes, can you explain it in words that I might understand?

An answer of "I don't know" from you is OK. I just asked a question, thinking you might have a full explanation.

As to arbitration - if you accept the gambler's fallacy as 100%, then our settlement will have to be to agree that we disagree.

A) I understand the Monty Hall Doors. I understood it long before you joined. No need to refer me to more articles re-hashing that.

B) It can be exhilirating. Because when you do pin down a fact, when you can verify something empirically, there really is no arguing about it. I have experienced outdoing random on many occassions and come out winning myself. I know of others. Empirical proof that the gambler's fallacy does not explain. Unless those winners are explained there and I just did not understand it. If it is there, then the question becomes, can you explain it in words that I might understand?

An answer of "I don't know" from you is OK. I just asked a question, thinking you might have a full explanation.

As to arbitration - if you accept the gambler's fallacy as 100%, then our settlement will have to be to agree that we disagree.

truecritic,

I'm not talking about arbitration between us. Wikipedia allows you to challenge the Gambler's Fallacy article, which you might want to do.

Actually, I think it would behoove you to follow my advice that I've given now 2 times in a row and which I won't repeat. If you finally see the light, it will save you the embaressment you will surely suffer by the reception you will receive at Wikipedia if you try.

If you know of people who have won against all odds, they most likely have not played long enough to know what their long term results will be or they are lottery Jackpot winners! In the lottery, one Powerball hit saves them from the agony of a bloodletting, but it doesn't prove anything about their system, if any.

It also might help if you would cut/paste one of the GF articles here and highlight and comment on what you disagree with, point by point.

As far as answering your questions in simpler language. This is why I suggested you look for alternative explanations of the Gambler's Fallacy. At Google, you will find 119,00 articles on the subject.

I'm not talking about arbitration between us. Wikipedia allows you to challenge the Gambler's Fallacy article, which you might want to do.

Actually, I think it would behoove you to follow my advice that I've given now 2 times in a row and which I won't repeat. If you finally see the light, it will save you the embaressment you will surely suffer by the reception you will receive at Wikipedia if you try.

If you know of people who have won against all odds, they most likely have not played long enough to know what their long term results will be or they are lottery Jackpot winners! In the lottery, one Powerball hit saves them from the agony of a bloodletting, but it doesn't prove anything about their system, if any.

It also might help if you would cut/paste one of the GF articles here and highlight and comment on what you disagree with, point by point.

As far as answering your questions in simpler language. This is why I suggested you look for alternative explanations of the Gambler's Fallacy. At Google, you will find 119,00 articles on the subject.

Did you read Dean Esmay's blog article I pointed you to?

--Jimmy4164

There is no reason to beat a dead horse. Some threads get "carried away." I am happy enough to believe my experiences and certainly do not reject the gambler's fallacy outright. If you say they haven't played long enough, then that is your answer.

I went to the Pennsylvania Lottery site and painfully cut N paste each year from 1977 thru 2010 for the evening draw and created an evening draw file. I have 11579 draws. I'm not going to do the daily midday draw.

So if I create a system that makes 10 straight picks for each draw (i.e $10) my cost using my draw history file would be (11579-1) * 10 or $115,780. I would have to hit a straight every 50 draws to break even.

Is it your premise that my expected return or prize ratio would only be 50% or $57,890 if I spent $115,780? If so, how much of a prize ratio of above 50% would I have to achieve before you were convinced that I had a system that did better than random?

I went to the Pennsylvania Lottery site and painfully cut N paste each year from 1977 thru 2010 for the evening draw and created an evening draw file. I have 11579 draws. I'm not going to do the daily midday draw.

So if I create a system that makes 10 straight picks for each draw (i.e $10) my cost using my draw history file would be (11579-1) * 10 or $115,780. I would have to hit a straight every 50 draws to break even.

Is it your premise that my expected return or prize ratio would only be 50% or $57,890 if I spent $115,780? If so, how much of a prize ratio of above 50% would I have to achieve before you were convinced that I had a system that did better than random?

Jimmy

Hello!

Jimmy

Making a profit playing the state lottery and doing better than by "random chance" don't have to be the same thing.

In truth, I hardly know anything at all about Math, but I read somewhere that if a game such as the pick 3 has 1000 straight combinations and that if a person plays 1 number-line each draw, that in the very long run in average a person might win about 1 time straight for every 1000 draws played, so in 100 000 draws played a person might have won close to 100 times, How "close"?

I have no idea.

So that if a person does better than by "random expectation" such as getting more than 100 straight wins on the 100 000 draws played then a person would "beat" "random".

------------

What are Odds?

The odds are a thing of perspective or "point of view", Or are they? They are not!

The "rule" is very clear:

While each number bought has a 1/1000 chance of winning, buying 10 do give better odds, Why? Because after all if you buy 1000 numbers you have 100% chance of winning, even if even then each number still has a 1/1000 chance of winning, so the more numbers bought the better that the chances will be, that should now be very clear to most people.

------------------

So to "beat" random you have to do better than by random expectation.

If you win 2 times straight on 1000 draws playing 1 number per draw then you beat random on those 1000 draws.

------------

What is better? To buy 1 number per draw for 1000 draws or to buy 10 numbers per draw for 100 draws?

1 number per draw gives you 1/1000 chance of winning always.

10 numbers per draw give you 1/100 chance of winning.

But even at 1/1000 per draw extending the playing from 100 to 1000 draws equalize the odds, so both have exactly the same odds, so both are just as good.

-------

But I might be wrong on everything that I wrote there, after all, What do I know about such things, I am "Math Dumb"

"I say it is based on skill to be able to pick 3 numbers and beat the odds - based on a system or method that a person uses."

Here is the request I made of you in the post you replied to above:

-----Jimmy4164 Quote-----

"Some here have expressed a mistrust of Wikipedia. Please do me a favor and plug 'Gambler's Fallacy' into your Google search box and take a look at how other sites deal with it. I prefer Wikipedia for these kinds of issues because of the strict vetting the articles get, but there are other places to get information. The 'Gambler's Fallacy' is at the heart of most of the debates I've followed here at this site over the last month.

.....................

I really would like to get some feedback on what you find, and what you think of what you find!

-------------------------

Based on your current remarks, I think the odds are pretty good that you have NOT YET done me the favor!

Once you UNDERSTAND the Gambler's Fallacy, and it sinks in, you will never make your remark [in blue] at the top again!

--Jimmy4164

P.S.

You also asked,"Let's extend it to all professional gamblers that have for years, defied the odds and won millions? How does the gambler's fallacy allow that to happen?"

Professional gamblers, like stock traders, horse race handicappers, sports betters, blackjack card counters, etc., are NOT GUILTY of believing the Gambler's Fallacy! Why? Because the historical events and statistics that they rely on to predict the short term future have been shown(PROVED) to have predictive abilities, based on cause and effect relationships between them and subsequent events. When a Blackjack player updates his/her counters when cards are removed from play, he/she has a slightly better edge than before, and their edge continues to increase UNTIL THE CARDS ARE RESHUFFLED! In lotteries, ALL OF THE "CARDS" ARE REPLACED AND RESHUFFLED AFTER EVERY DRAW!!!

How can I make it any clearer than this?

Jimmy

You almost got it but not quite. I am not saying play the rest but to make a selection from the rest.

Lets say you played 1 triple every day. You could expect to hit about 1 out of every 1000 plays on

average. It could go higher or lower.

If You play singles the odds are still 1 in 1000 for any one set / drawing but I think you would agree

that 72% of all draws would come from this group while only .001% would come from the triple digit

sets. If you play box-any order than you will win more often than playing straight-exact order. You

may not win more than you play but you will win more often. This is what I call playing smarter.

As concerning system play have you ever considered using secondary data that does seem to have a

somewhat prediciable outcome. As I have stated I don't use numbers in my system and never look at

them except when filling in the playslips. I have found that I can predict certian data with a 90% or

better accuracy more than 75% of the time. System builders won't release certian data as it is often

a result of many hours of hard work and is the key to the system. My system requires input from the

user and if correct then the winning set is produced. Maybe it would be better to call it a tool as I have

many times within my post. I still think that you use a basic math example to explain everything and

as long as it is used in this way it will always give the same results. Many here playing pick-3 / 4 games

have many methods that as far as I can tell change as often as the weather. The only way to test these

systems is to start now and follow their progress, adapting as they adapt their play. If you can find

a so called system that uses the same method day after day than you could backtest it but only then.

To apply your method to a what I call a mini system is just a waste of time as it will always show the

same results. I know you will feel the need to calculate the wins above based on the PA pick-3 but

don't waste you time, I already know what they would be. Instead calculate how much a QP would

have won and then tell me which would be worse.

RL

Working on my Ph.D. "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not. Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

I went to the Pennsylvania Lottery site and painfully cut N paste each year from 1977 thru 2010 for the evening draw and created an evening draw file. I have 11579 draws. I'm not going to do the daily midday draw.

So if I create a system that makes 10 straight picks for each draw (i.e $10) my cost using my draw history file would be (11579-1) * 10 or $115,780. I would have to hit a straight every 50 draws to break even.

Is it your premise that my expected return or prize ratio would only be 50% or $57,890 if I spent $115,780? If so, how much of a prize ratio of above 50% would I have to achieve before you were convinced that I had a system that did better than random?

Jimmy

jimjwright,

"Is it your premise that my expected return or prize ratio would only be 50% or $57,890 if I spent $115,780? If so, how much of a prize ratio of above 50% would I have to achieve before you were convinced that I had a system that did better than random?"

Yes, the Expected Value of this game is 0.50. You know there are people who would say their system "beat random" if they won $61,000, about 5% more than expected over the 33+ years, even though their NET LOSS was still $55,000 overall. Yet others would be immediately convinced they had found the Holy Grail if their system predicted 327 would win after one week of play, and it did! And there are many variations on these themes of opinion over that range.

This post displays an analysis of the number of hits of each of the 1000 PA numbers in the database you now have.

As you can see, the range is 20, including several that only hit 3 times, and one (308) that hit 23 times. The average was 11.6, which was expected. The several occurences of 3 were within 3 standard deviations and the one 23 was only one step outside 3 SDs. With this much [acceptable] variation in this random process, and my belief that backtests of any "System" proposed is going to produce results within these variations, your question is moot to me, and can't reasonably be answered. Note that even a daily purchase of the number (308) that hit more than any other was a losing proposition over the 33+ years.

What criteria would you use to claim you have a system that beats random?

What criteria would you use to claim you have a system that makes money?